Malaspina

In addition to those mentioned above, one (small) advantage I can think of is that multiple (infinite?) installs are now possible on as many PCs as you like and you no longer need to worry about how many licenses you have left if you have "fried" four PCs in a row during the year. Is that correct?
A (small) disadvantage I can think of is that if you use Steam in online mode you will only be able to play the game on one PC at a time. It may be an issue if, for example, one of your family members (my son for me) is using a CM game with a shared family account. You will be thrown out of your game. The workaround is to use Steam in offline mode, of course. But if a multi-player, co-play version ever comes about it will be a major issue (well at least in my family )

You are not alone I am sure.
For CMAK and CMBB I enjoyed the ROQC quick campaign generator that Rob O created (automated spreadsheet for campaign play through of a core unit, promotions, casualty tracking, etc). It would be great if some Excel guru could figure out how to make it work for CMx2 games.

The real shocker for me was Steve's admission he's more of a strategic/operational rather than tactical player, given the company's determined refusal to add a strategic layer to CM over the years. But just like with Steam (a no-no only until a few months ago) things may change in that respect too, who knows?
Hey, why not change your perspective altogether and retry a foray into the Napoleonic age, this time at a strategic level integrated with tactical battles? Probably much easier to do than a WWII game. An old game called "Napoleon 1813" comes to mind, which was a terrific concept (but hell to play).
No? Well, one can only dream...

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

Hi rocketman, I used gmaps for terrain and satellite overlays, and then relied on MacDonald's descriptions (and my own experience of the area) to add foliage and terrain tiles. I'm not especially pleased with the end result but it should do. I'll probably go over it several times before I'm fully satisfied. If you want to check it out, any suggestions are more than welcome! The master map is 1520x2000. Ideally I would like to reduce foliage and add craters (caused by US arty) in subsequent scenarios as the battle progresses.
True, the inclines are too steep in many places even for infantry, which, while historical, makes the map unplayable in many areas. To avoid that, I spaced the "direct" input in elevation mode (black tiles) when following the altitude lines of the overlay map. If you draw a continuous line of "black" altitude markers on each and every tile, you will see a lot of horizontal lines of impassable rock slabs in 3D preview that make the map look horrible and prevent any vertical movement of infantry trying to climb the hill. If you space those "black direct inputs" every four or five map tiles, some of the slabs will be pierced here and there and the overall effect is a more "rounded" map. However, you still have to deal with impassable tiles and horrid-looking spikes everywhere...
To try to solve that, a trick I used in one battle in particular was to draw vertical footpaths wherever those rock slabs prevented movement or created choke points. Again, not aesthetically ideal but it works.
I'll send you a message for those resources, yes!

Hi everyone,
I've had an obsession with "Monte Altuzzo" for quite a while after reading MacDonald's book Three Battles a few years ago. With RtV out, I couldn't resist temptation and had a go (once again) at the scenario editor. I drew a master map of the entire area and then carved out small maps to create four scenarios depicting the action that took place on Sept. 13, 1944, which I've almost finished. (The actual battle went on for four more days. I might keep going if I have the energy...)
These are Allied v. AI scenarios with a feeble attempt at A.I. plans for the Germans. Rather than actual scenarios I would call them "companion scenarios" to Three Battles following MacDonald's narrative as closely as possible. Just to give you a better idea, this is the Designer's Notes I will probably include in all four:
"This battle is part of a series called “Break-Through at Monte Altuzzo” depicting the action described in the book Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo and Schmidt (pgs. 103-247) by Charles B. MacDonald.

All scenarios are historical and should be played as Allied v. AI. No balancing effort has been made in terms of forces available for h2h purposes. The scenarios are an attempt at a historical depiction of the 338th Infantry Reg. assault on the Gothic Line between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17, 1944. This means that in some battles you might, for example, be facing overwhelming odds, while in other scenarios you will be fighting against a broken enemy previously wiped out by an artillery barrage (which was in fact a major factor in the American Army's ultimate success).

Historical participants are marked with an asterisk (*)."


While they are "historical" scenarios (i.e. very possibly unbalanced) I still need general feedback and would like them to be enjoyable for the single player. How does one go about searching for testers and publishing scenarios these days? Is anyone here interested? Thanks!
enrico

Hi everyone,
I've had an obsession with "Monte Altuzzo" for quite a while after reading MacDonald's book Three Battles a few years ago. With RtV out, I couldn't resist temptation and had a go (once again) at the scenario editor. I drew a master map of the entire area and then carved out small maps to create four scenarios depicting the action that took place on Sept. 13, 1944, which I've almost finished. (The actual battle went on for four more days. I might keep going if I have the energy...)
These are Allied v. AI scenarios with a feeble attempt at A.I. plans for the Germans. Rather than actual scenarios I would call them "companion scenarios" to Three Battles following MacDonald's narrative as closely as possible. Just to give you a better idea, this is the Designer's Notes I will probably include in all four:
"This battle is part of a series called “Break-Through at Monte Altuzzo” depicting the action described in the book Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo and Schmidt (pgs. 103-247) by Charles B. MacDonald.

All scenarios are historical and should be played as Allied v. AI. No balancing effort has been made in terms of forces available for h2h purposes. The scenarios are an attempt at a historical depiction of the 338th Infantry Reg. assault on the Gothic Line between Sept. 13 and Sept. 17, 1944. This means that in some battles you might, for example, be facing overwhelming odds, while in other scenarios you will be fighting against a broken enemy previously wiped out by an artillery barrage (which was in fact a major factor in the American Army's ultimate success).

Historical participants are marked with an asterisk (*)."


While they are "historical" scenarios (i.e. very possibly unbalanced) I still need general feedback and would like them to be enjoyable for the single player. How does one go about searching for testers and publishing scenarios these days? Is anyone here interested? Thanks!
enrico

Yes! He did not just write it as a side remark. He made an official announcement!
The wait is on. And I will throw an epic tantrum (complete with foot-stomping, head-banging, fist-waiving, ugly mug-displaying) if CMPTO is not out by March 1, 2027. 😉

Visiting this site is like Groundhog Day 😉